Friday round-up

Posted Fri, July 13th, 2012 9:43 am by Rachel Sachs

Once again, the health care cases continue to receive considerable media attention. In an issue brief for the Heritage Foundation, Nina Owcharenko argues that the Court’s decision “to strike down the Medicaid mandate on the states as unconstitutionally coercive . . . likely puts the law on a faster pace to collapse.” On the other hand, in an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun, James Burdick contends that the Court’s decision has “cleared the way” for universal health care.

Other coverage focuses on the substance of the health care decision. Commentary on the Court’s Commerce Clause reasoning comes from Neil Siegel at Balkinization and Randy Barnett at Reason (video). Jonathan Adler, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy and again with Nathaniel Stewart at the National Review Online, argues that the decision will have “limited doctrinal implications.” Meanwhile, at Education Week, Mark Walsh considers the decision’s potential relevance for challenges to federal education statutes. Tim Lynch of Cato@Liberty looks at Justice Thomas’s opinion in the health care cases and concludes that, “for anyone who takes seriously the fact that the Constitution established a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, there is one Supreme Court Justice that consistently stands head and shoulders above the rest–and that’s Clarence Thomas.” And finally, commentators continue to discuss the Chief Justice’s opinion at the New Republic, the Volokh Conspiracy (here and here), and SCOTUSreport.

The Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC also continues to garner commentary. At SCOTUSreport, John O. McGinnis has a third post in his four-part series on the decision in which he argues that it “has not released a floodgate of for-profit corporate independent expenditures.” And in an op-ed for The New York Times, Benjamin Sachs contends that the decision created both an asymmetry between the ability of unions and corporations to engage in political spending and potential First Amendment problems regarding public pension funds.

Briefly:

At Bloomberg Businessweek, Greg Stohr looks ahead to the major cases being argued in the next Term.

Writing at Constitution Daily, Lyle more closely examines the legal consequences of the Court’s recent decision in Arizona v. United States, in which it invalidated several provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law.

Justice Ginsburg delivered a lecture (video) as part of Wake Forest University School of Law’s Venice study abroad program.

Justice Kennedy spoke at the Aspen Institute about the Constitution and the Court, in an event moderated by Akhil Amar and Elliot Gerson.

The Los Angeles Times reports on the introduction by Senator Jim Webb of a new bill, the Military Service Integrity Act, in response to the Court’s recent decision in United States v. Alvarez, striking down the Stolen Valor Act. The bill would criminalize lies about military service that are made to secure tangible benefits or personal gain.

Responding to posts (which Conor featured in Wednesday’s round-up) on what the health care decision might signify about conservative attitudes toward judicial review, Ilya Somin – blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy – argues that the main point of distinction is over “what kinds of legislation should be treated deferentially and what kinds should not.”

Merits Case Pages and Archives

On Monday, the justices met for their September 25 conference. The justices removed Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii from the court's October sitting. We expect orders from this conference on Thursday. The October 2017 term will begin on Monday, October 2. The calendar for the October sitting is available on the court's website.

Major Cases

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project(1) Whether respondents’ challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 is justiciable; (2) whether Section 2(c)’s temporary suspension of entry violates the Establishment Clause; (3) whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.

Gill v. Whitford(1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court’s test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

Carpenter v. United StatesWhether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Conference of September 25, 2017

Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

On August 16, Judge Jon Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit gave a lecture, “The Supreme Court — Then and Now,” in which he compared the Supreme Court today to the court in October Term 1957, when Newman served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren.